As a film reviewer, a young British woman named P.L. Travers, writing about the movie “Snow White” in 1937, pronounced Walt Disney a shameless purveyor of cheeseball crap: “There is a profound cynicism,” she wrote, “at the root of his, as of all, sentimentality.”

Travers would go on to experience that personally: She is the author of the “Mary Poppins” series, and the subject of the forthcoming Disney movie, “Saving Mr. Banks,” about the studio’s — and Walt’s — struggles to wrest the magical tale from the grasping talons of the tiresome spinster who penned it.

Or that’s the story Disney is selling, with the ultra-likable Tom Hanks in the role of Walt and Emma Thompson playing Travers, a woman the actress referred to in an interview as “so awful and so irritating.” Another recent story, in Variety, called her “a pill no spoonful of sugar could sweeten.”

Can’t a feisty literary legend catch a break?

Travers is one of the only authors who ever stood up to the Disney juggernaut, demanding a level of involvement and approval that most in her position were denied. She did it in an era, and an industry, where women were few and far between and faced an uphill struggle just to be heard at all. Most of all, she invented the beloved character, a mysterious nanny who’s blown into the Banks family’s lives by the east wind, iconic umbrella held aloft. If not for Travers’ wild imagination, there would be no Mary, no movie.

“I don’t think Disney had the faintest idea of what to expect when she turned up [on the ‘Poppins’ set],” says Brian Sibley, a British writer who worked with Travers in the 1980s on a never-realized sequel to the film. “She was an immensely complex person. Amazingly independent and strong, very determined, very strong-willed.”

As strong-willed, it turned out, as Disney — a man used to getting his own way. “Disney brought her to Hollywood and decided he would charm her into making this film,” says Marc Eliot, author of “Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince.”

“But she wasn’t very charm-able. She was a tough woman — not quirky or cute. She didn’t like American movies, and she hated animation more than anything else.”

Travers demanded there be no cartoon elements in the movie (a battle she ultimately lost). She thought the songs, like “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” were stupid. And she resented the romantic relationship that was ginned up between Mary (Julie Andrews) and chimney sweep Bert (Dick Van Dyke).

The self-assured Travers, born Helen Lyndon Goff in 1899, had a history of going against the grain, a fact Disney almost certainly was not aware of. She never married, in a time when an unwed woman was profoundly stigmatized. She dated both men and women, ran with a crowd of A-list British poets and had a deep and formative interest in mysticism, myth and fairy tales. She was an adventurer who grew up in the Australian Outback; as an adult, she changed her name, moved to London and worked as an actress, a dancer, an erotica writer and a journalist. She spent two summers living on an American Indian reservation, studying the culture.

She did not suffer fools gladly, and she was never happy with the cheery and sanitized movie Disney ultimately made out of her book.

Unlike the tidy conclusion of “Saving Mr. Banks” — a happy ending, as this is a Disney film, too — Travers was never won over by the man, his studio employees or the film. She wept through the premiere of 1964’s “Mary Poppins,” an event she was initially not even invited to. Contrary to “Mr. Banks,” they were not tears of joy but of profound frustration. She spent the rest of her life maligning what she saw as the maudlin mess her Mary Poppins had become on the big screen.

Travers died in 1996, at the age of 96, irascible until the end. She had once said she looked forward to knowing all the answers in old age, but when asked about that at the age of 94, she barked at a reporter: “Here I am, sitting in my chair, and I don’t think I’m going to know all the answers. I’m human!”

Now, Disney is coming back to soften and romanticize the sharp-tongued, endlessly creative woman herself — as well as its shoddy treatment of her opinions.

“Disney had no creative respect for this woman,” says Eliot. “He wanted a property, and once he got it he completely ignored her input and all the restrictions she had agreed to. And that’s how the film got made.

Whose side are you on?

What a bunch of crap this article is. Personally, the film put PL Travers in a much better light than this article does. The girl who played her as a child had me sympathizing for her throughout the movie. Secondly, she never explained why she cried at the premiere, so either side suggesting as such is un-based and unfounded. On record (letter/wire), she had actually expressed her approval immediately after the premier. There is every reason to believe that she heard other critics of the film and only then became more and more disenchanted with the final product.

Disney had to make many concessions to the author to get the film rights and to get the film completed, as she had installed rights up to the completion of the film. This film shows her fully utilizing her position as owner of the rights, to effect change in how the film was done. This depicts a strong woman who made sure she was in the process.

I do enjoy Disney animation films, but to this day I do not enjoy the animation in Mary Poppins. I think the film would have been better off without it.

I am really sick and tired of these morons saying that Walt Disney got anything he wanted. What a crock! He worked hard to get where he got and he had many disappointments (including bankruptcy and loss of rights to other works) on the way. There were other books he wanted and never got, he wanted more land for Disneyland, but could not afford it. He wanted a son and never got one. He lived in a very modest house by today's standards of Hollywood and entertainment. He did not get the rights to Mary Poppins because he willed it. It came down to a collaboration of the two, if albeit a contentious one.

If you are going to write an objective piece, then keep your personal pitiful opinions out of it! Clearly you are a cynic, and as such, are not a Disney fan. Nothing wrong with it, but don't write about what you don't know. He did grow up in very difficult times and had to work hard for his fathers various enterprises. Out of this he valued entertainment as the few times he had a chance to take in some form of entertainment was like someone coming out of the desert without water for days, falling into a pool of clear water. Yes, most of his movies are feel good movies, but they have their place in society the same as tear jerkers, dramas and horror movies.

PS: Disney went public in 1957. While Walt continued to run it, a board of directors largely has influenced the output since then. Why don't you rag on the members of the board, who are all successful business persons? In the end, they oversee everything the company does.

This review is total bull. I just saw this film last night. YES, there were a lot of differences between "Mrs. Travers" and Walt Disney. YES she was a stubborn woman, who was very bitter from a very difficult past. But to say that Disney "trashes" her in the movie? Not really..........actually they made her out be be nicer than she was. Without being a "spoiler" for those who have not seen the movie, there are twists and turns that you will not see coming unless you already know some history of Travers herself. She did pen three sequals to Mary Poppins that she would never give the rights to make. I agree with other posters here before me, that the author of this article is ha Disney hater. GO SEE THIS FILM, is the best advice I can offer. I was six years old when Mary Poppins was release in the theatre. I gre up loving the story, loveing the music by the Sherman Brothers, and loving Disney everything. This film is for all of us who could never forget Mary Poppins, and puts an entire new light on the film itself. Robert Sherman's son Jeffrey gave this advice on the film, after seeing it, go home and watch Mary Poppins. It will put so many things in perspective for you. He's right. I will be watching it tomorrow!

A September 1, 1964 letter from Travers to Walt Disney gives the lie to a lot of this nonsense. A cordial (and even enthusiastic) Travers writes, "The whole picture is a splendid spectacle and I admire you for perceiving in Julie Andrews an actress who could play the part. Her performance as Mary Poppins is beautifully understated, which is what I would have asked for, anyway, and she is excellent in both roles. For I think the picture falls into two halves--the home scenes which kept some contact with the books and the musical comedy scenes which are Disney and Disney at his best!"

I think the author of this article is confusing the movie with some sort of biography. The movie is about the making of Mary Poppins and shows the details of her life that are relevant to the main story. Her work as an erotica writer, native American enthusiast, or her bisexual relations (which are all fascinating and am glad the author included) are all completely irrelevant to the focus of the movie and any objection to their omission is preposterous.

As far as how she is portrayed I think the movie is remarkably and painstakingly attentive that none of the characters in the movie themselves offer an opinion about Travers' personality, behavior or being difficult to work with. As far as what the actors, or viewers think of her is entirely open to their free thought and opinions. People don't like difficult people (male or female). Get over it. Difficult people are not typically enjoyed (though I found her character very enjoyable to the point I was laughing out loud) regardless of their gender. Difficult people may gather a cult following that appreciate where they're coming from (usually also difficult people, such as myself).

People that go to see Saving Mr. Banks will likely have grown up seeing Mary Poppins which is a classic - if the movie ends with her absolutely hating it, this alienates the audience (who's child-hood devotion is to the movie, not to Travers). Showing her being won over however slightly (however idealized and romanticized) is probably much more likely to leave audience members with a positive feeling about her and go read her books or look up her biography (and learn the truth, by which time they may have developed a rapport with who she really was). Portraying her as Dragon Lady (which sounds true to life) and being unable to be satisfied, unwilling to compromise, and in some cases just flat out being disrespectful and unforgiving from beginning to end without some sort of display of humanity or warmth is not likely to win over the audience. Her acquiescence at the end of the movie affords her much more lee-way with the audience than if she had simply hated it. Romanticized? Perhaps. Or maybe they realized the nature of the process showed her in a very combative posture and wanted to allow her to save face in the same way they allow Disney to save face. The movie is intended to be entertainment, not a CNN report about how Travers giving over her creative rights to someone who had already been explicit about what he was going to do to it (like selling someone a house and but trying to make them promise not to paint it a color your don't like. If you sell it, it's not yours anymore). Anyone that has seen Disney adapt beloved books to screen knows the routine and what Disney does to books and how they sanitize them and replace their literary core with Disney fluff. Saving Mr. Banks doesn't have the power to whitewash that reality (for those that actually still read).

I watched a semi biographical documentary on PL Travers and in listening to her adopted son, friends, stage directors etc. it is quite clear she was a fascinating, if difficult, woman. That these 2 Titans clashed is of little concern, Poppins was obviously the most personal thing Travers ever possessed, it was all her very personal frustrations and triumphs, who on this planet could give that up so easily? They both lived amazing lives and the world is better for it.

This author really has an axe to grind. She is anti-Disney, as are some of the writers on this page. As to how we know about what a miserable P L Travers was, Ms. Thompson listed to audio recording of sessions with the Sherman brothers. See the snippet of an interview with Dick Van Dyke, elsewhere on the web-Travers wanted a frumpy, unattractive Mary Poppins - probably like herself!

As to Walt, he was the master of imagination. Think for a moment - The Disney studio at that time was not the mega power it is today. It survived with a little luck, and the perseverance of two brothers, along the the loyalty of the staff which they inspired. When this story takes place, it is not long after Sleeping Beauty came out, which put the studio in the red.

Here is something to think about. Of all the studios, many of them with a particular style of story telling and photography, Disney is the only survivor that is making essentially the same kind of movies that they made then - and well before then. Sure, Walt was a crafty businessman - and a charmer ( charmed ABC TV and Golden Books to put up ⅔ of the money to build Disneyland) but he was also a genius and a visionary, still far ahead of his time. He was a risk-taker, very loyal to his employees and to his vision of the world. Can Travers make the same claims?

She wrote a book. Disney made a film. Had he made a slavishly faithful adaptation of her book, it would have been a flop. Disney knew that, because he knew the movie marketplace, he knew what people wanted to see. She is neither a hero for her hatred of the film, neither is he a hero for resisting her efforts to control it. Both understood their respective tasks and fulfilled them well. To crucify either is a mistake, to idolize either is another.

After old Yeller, I never liked or trusted Disney. And Travers was more of a person and a woman then Thompson will ever be. As to Hanks, as if liberal causes weren't enough, he's one of obamas useful idiots, and I do not pay to see or enrich idiots.

I'm confused. If P.L. Travers died in 1996, I seriously doubt Emma Thompson ever met her to prepare for this role. So how could she have known that Travers was "so awful and so irritating?" Perhaps she was just sharing her impression of the "character" Travers from this movie, not necessarily her personal impression of the real woman.

It would be unfair to say so without ever meeting her. Most of the information about Travers in this film seems to be secondhand from the impressions of others who are also now deceased.

Too bad Travers didn't live to see the 2000s. I'm sure her vision would have met more sympathetic ears, since nowadays darker re-tellings of classics are all the rage.

Sometimes authors, like parents, have to learn to let go. I can forgive Ms. Travers her behavior. As for the Disney bashers, anyone who calls Walt Disney a fool, is an idiot. As for the Disney studio revising history in a film, name me one non-documentary film that hasn't.

The fact that you quote Marc Eliot, the man who wrote the most discredited, inaccurate and apocryphal biography ever about Walt Disney, makes me dismiss your entire story as just another slanted attack against both Disney the man and the company. It's clear you're setting out to do a bigger trash job on Disney than it could ever do to P. L. Travers.

She did not sell out. It clearly states she was promised certain things which she never got. The Mary Poppins books were my favorite as a child. I hated the Disney version. It had almost nothing to do with the books.

Why did she despise animation? I think the animation in Mary Poppins was pretty wretched (mainly because animation in the 1960s was rather stark, sketchy, and ugly,) but Disney has made some beautiful animated movies, including the movie Travers panned.

A Mary Poppins that is a little closer to Travers' stories would be interesting to see. I usually deplore remakes of old movies, but in this case, I wouldn't mind seeing a less sanitized version of Poppins. I remember the stories far more vividly than the movie and I am 51 years old. The stories weren't so saccharine.

Yes, and Stephen King hated Kubrick's version of "The Shining". The list of writers frustrated with the movie version of their work is endless ... yet they all managed to sign the papers and cash the checks. It seems possible that Disney knew more about what made for a successful movie than Ms. Travers. Bottom line, her literary works inspired an extremely successful movie that has been enjoyed by multiple generations for decades. Maybe that's not such a horrible legacy for either Disney or Travers.

What authors never seem to understand is that movies are not books. They are two completely different mediums. What takes two pages to say in a novel can be said in a pan of the area of action. What is said in a sentience or two must be blocked, lit, cast, and "presented" on the screen. By the same token the magic and poetry of words does not often translate so easily to digitized storytelling. Good books do not always make good movies, and memorable movies have often sprung form pedestrian written works.

@myrddyn13 . I'm sure Hanks's "liberal causes" such as "Saving Private Ryan," "Band of Brothers," "The Pacific," and "Beyond All Boundaries" and the World War II Museum would have met with Walt Disney's enthusiastic support and approval.

@KM Every single person I've met and talked to that worked with her said that the experience was horrible; the "so awful and so irritating" quote was far kinder than any other description I've heard from them.